Patna High Court
VIJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARYversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered interim pre‑arrest bail and directed the parties to pursue mediation, holding that the dispute is essentially civil and should be resolved outside the criminal process.
Summary
Vijay Kumar Choudhary applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC relating to alleged misappropriation of funds and a performance guarantee. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner received cash and bank transfers for a contract work, executed an unregistered agreement and a power of attorney, and failed to return money owed to the complainant. The petitioner claimed innocence and sought settlement through mediation, arguing the dispute is essentially civil. The High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, held that the matter appears to be a civil dispute cloaked as a criminal case and directed the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation, granting interim protection and conditional pre‑arrest bail. The court ordered that if mediation succeeds the criminal proceedings be withdrawn, otherwise the bail conditions remain in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Sections 406 and 420 IPC constitutes a genuine criminal offence or a civil dispute disguised as criminal.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted pending mediation.
- Whether the High Court can direct mediation under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18734 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-747 Year-2019 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Choudhary, aged about 59 years, Male, Son of Late Bidhichand
Choudhary, resident of just before Sri Ganesh Bandana Enclave, Vivekanand
Park Road, P.S- Patliputra, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satyendra Prasad Singh Son Of Late Kamal Singh Resident Of B/24, P.S.-
Budha Colony, District-Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 30-01-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr.
Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 747(C) of 2019 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant, Satendra Prasad Singh, filed a written complaint
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
2/8
in connection with a contract work, a sum of ₹5,83,500/- was
paid in cash to the accused persons, which was to be refunded. It
is further alleged that for the purpose of furnishing a
performance guarantee, an amount of ₹7,00,000/- was paid, out
of which ₹3,00,000/- was transferred on 16.09.2017 and another
₹3,00,000/- on 05.10.2017 into two different bank accounts of
the accused persons. It is further alleged that an unregistered
agreement dated 06.03.2018 was executed between the
complainant and the accused persons regarding payment of the
contract amount to the complainant and authorizing him to
operate the accuseds' bank account, which was not accepted by
the bank. Subsequently, on 12.03.2018, a registered Power of
Attorney was executed by the accused in favour of the
complainant for operation of the said bank account. The
complainant further alleged that despite investing a substantial
amount in the construction work, the accused did not take
interest in the work and failed to hand over the amount of
₹4,09,000/- paid by the department to the accused. Repeated
demands were allegedly made by the complainant, including on
21.12.2018, and a legal notice dated 01.02.2019 was also issued,
but the accused failed to return the money.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
3/8
petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that
the matter primarily relates to monetary transaction between the
parties and for amicable settlement of dispute between the
parties outside the Court, the matter be referred for mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail
submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to
resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties, on instructions, submitted that the
parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at
10:30 A.M. on 19.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of
mediation .
7. Heard the parties
8. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is
required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
4/8
outside the Court.
9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the
observation made by the Apex Court in case of Paramjeet
Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673,
in which, the Apex Court in paragraph no. 12 has held as
follows:
"12. While exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to
be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But
the High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil
remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of the court."
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid
proposition in recent judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.
vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1575.
11. The Apex Court while considering the content of
ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in
the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
5/8
after discussing the earlier law laid down in several cases, has
observed in paragraphs nos. 35, 36 and 37, inter alia as follows:
Difference between criminal breach of trust
and cheating
35. This Court in its decision in S.W.
Palanitkar v. State of Bihar S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the
ingredients required for constituting of an offence of
criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the
offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations
read as under :
“9. The ingredients in order to constitute a
criminal breach of trust are : (i) entrusting a person with
property or with any dominion over property; (ii) that
person entrusted : (a) dishonestly misappropriating or
converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly
using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any
other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the
discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating
are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement
of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived
should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or
to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b)
the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)
(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property.”
36. What can be discerned from the above is
that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406
IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific
ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of
trust (Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person for
property or dominion over the property, and
(2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted
property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the
property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
6/8
violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing the
method in which the trust is discharged; or
(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of
trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.
Similarly, in respect of an offence under
Section 420IPC, the essential ingredients are:
(1) Deception of any person, either by making
a false or misleading representation or by other action or
by omission;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any
person to deliver any property, or
(3) The consent that any person shall retain
any property and finally intentionally inducing that person
to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
(see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab
[Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7
SCC 712.
37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections,
mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention
must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there
from the very beginning or inception."
12. The parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 19.02.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties, so as to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
14. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
7/8
best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit
his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well
within a period of two months, till then, no coercive action shall
be taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid
case.
15. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the petitioners are
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
16. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
appear on 19.02.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioners shall automatically lose its force.
17. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioners shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
18. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also,
petitioners are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such
terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18734 of 2023(4) dt.30-01-2026
8/8
and proper.
19. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
20. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…